Deaf Parents Demand Right To Deaf Children : XML WIDGEThttp://www.plime.com/You can use this XML spec to create a desktop widget or other application (i.e. Flash visualization). Please share it with us in our forum and we'll link it here!en-us45113http://www.plime.com/technology/l/45113/1/<![CDATA[Deaf Parents Demand Right To Deaf Children]]>some are saying that the statement is taken out of context. That they want the right to implant embryos that are deaf when that is the only viable embryo.]]>1841812/23/2007 7:47:02 PM2007-12-23T19:47:02+01:00
177803http://www.plime.com/l/45113/1/xml_widget.rss#q19<![CDATA[fgaughan @ 1/14/2008 6:10:41 PM]]>«doggylives : Mental note; Don't piss off deaf peopleDon't post anything that you don't understand!]]>1/14/2008 6:10:41 PM2008-01-14T18:10:41+01:00165505http://www.plime.com/l/45113/1/xml_widget.rss#q18<![CDATA[Maven @ 12/26/2007 12:53:12 PM]]>«2manyusernames Also the main reason that a deaf person can life a full life and not miss out on anything is there are laws which protect deaf people because it is a disability.
There are laws to protect the rights of deaf people, to ensure that special treatment be given deaf people in many countries. Here in America people who are deaf can get disability income from social security. They can get a nice little check every month from the government because they have a disability.
Also there is the Americans with Disabilities act which gives them very strong protections and requires governments and businesses go to great expense to accommodate the special needs of deaf people. There is nothing wrong with this law, there should be protections in place. Governments and businesses should ensure that deaf people get the same use of services and employment opportunities as anyone else. However, if deafness isn't a disability than none of those are warranted. Should we stop that? I know many deaf people who are very conflicted over this very issue. The main problem they have is that they don't WANT the special treatment other than for communication. Having a translator is one of the requirements of ADA compliance, and it's often a serious battle for the deaf community when interracting with the hearing community--hospitals, private doctors, public events, schools, etc. Otherwise, most of the deaf people I've met don't want government handouts. A lot of the government protections are in place because historically, deafness wasn't understood well and many assumed that deaf people were also mentally deficient. There's a serious stigma associated with being called disabled, and that is a societal issue that we all have to address.
I do know where you're coming from, but this is a huge issue. I didn't understand any of these problems before meeting a number of deaf people and taking classes to learn ASL. I'm still on the fringe of it, but I have a totally different outlook on it now.]]>12/26/2007 12:53:12 PM2007-12-26T12:53:12+01:00165390http://www.plime.com/l/45113/1/xml_widget.rss#q17<![CDATA[doggylives @ 12/26/2007 4:44:05 AM]]>12/26/2007 4:44:05 AM2007-12-26T04:44:05+01:00165250http://www.plime.com/l/45113/1/xml_widget.rss#q16<![CDATA[alisonb @ 12/25/2007 8:59:33 PM]]> This Bill does not just effect deaf people, but e.g. those with refractive errors. Long or short sighted? Wear glasses? You can't become a donor.
Parliament is making statements who has the right to live or not. Anyone wear glasses on here, you aren't good enough. Happy with being defined by the fact you just wear glasses, then fine. However, you might not get the right to be developed from an embryo stage.
However, what parliament is doing is a new form of eugenics, and something we're trying to protest against.
stopeugenics.org]]>12/25/2007 8:59:33 PM2007-12-25T20:59:33+01:00165084http://www.plime.com/l/45113/1/xml_widget.rss#q15<![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 12/25/2007 8:47:24 AM]]>«deafbrutha : Don't patronise me and ever accuse me of being melodramatic. As I said I am a Deaf person myself, and know better than any Hearing person the ins and outs of being Deaf.
Your response is tot he article as you have read it, so you are in fact responding to a deliberate misrepresentation of what the campaign is about.
The person who wrote the article, had direct access to the convenor of the campaign who supplied her with the correct information, and then the journo goes on to write a totally biased and crap article.
There have been several threads, where the usual comments are by the same misinformed mob, who are in effect responding to a willfully misrepresented article.
And yes it is about the normality of being Deaf, but as you are basing your judgements on this article, and not much else [it seems], you are wrong. The article is biased and paints Deaf people as the baddies in this scenario.
We Deafies should be used to this by now, cos the only stuff Hearing people are capable of coming out with it seems, is the stuff as demonstrated in this article.
No one is insulting deaf people? I wonder if we are reading the same words?Forget it, you are completely melodramatic. You are not a victim no matter how strongly you feel that you are. You have a huge chip on your shoulder which you really need to get over. There is no big conspiracy amongst hearing people against you.
The argument is against throwing out embryos that can breathe in favor of ones that will be born deaf. That is wrong. Period. It doesn't matter if deafness is a disability or it isn't. As I said it would be wrong to throw out one that had brown eyes instead of blue eyes.
Did you read any of mine or others comments? I guess I have to repeat myself. Your comments have been the only insulting ones. Your comments called us names and used derogatory language.
No one is insulting deaf people. You want to quote someone that insulted deaf people because they were deaf? They did say that deafness is a disability, which it is. Is it a fatal disability, no. Is it one that can't be overcome, no. However to compare it to being left-handed as one of the comments on the link did is silly.
Obviously a deaf person can live a full life and not be bothered or miss out on anything because of that deafness, but it is still a disability nevertheless by the very definition of the word.
Also the main reason that a deaf person can life a full life and not miss out on anything is there are laws which protect deaf people because it is a disability.
There are laws to protect the rights of deaf people, to ensure that special treatment be given deaf people in many countries. Here in America people who are deaf can get disability income from social security. They can get a nice little check every month from the government because they have a disability.
Also there is the Americans with Disabilities act which gives them very strong protections and requires governments and businesses go to great expense to accommodate the special needs of deaf people. There is nothing wrong with this law, there should be protections in place. Governments and businesses should ensure that deaf people get the same use of services and employment opportunities as anyone else. However, if deafness isn't a disability than none of those are warranted. Should we stop that?
oh and you're welcome for editing the headline, description, and category to be more neutral and to link your article giving your response to it.]]>12/25/2007 8:47:24 AM2007-12-25T08:47:24+01:00165073http://www.plime.com/l/45113/1/xml_widget.rss#q14<![CDATA[deafbrutha @ 12/25/2007 6:01:59 AM]]> Your response is tot he article as you have read it, so you are in fact responding to a deliberate misrepresentation of what the campaign is about.
The person who wrote the article, had direct access to the convenor of the campaign who supplied her with the correct information, and then the journo goes on to write a totally biased and crap article.
There have been several threads, where the usual comments are by the same misinformed mob, who are in effect responding to a willfully misrepresented article.
And yes it is about the normality of being Deaf, but as you are basing your judgements on this article, and not much else [it seems], you are wrong. The article is biased and paints Deaf people as the baddies in this scenario.
We Deafies should be used to this by now, cos the only stuff Hearing people are capable of coming out with it seems, is the stuff as demonstrated in this article.
No one is insulting deaf people? I wonder if we are reading the same words?
«2manyusernames : There has not been any "ignorant or prejudiced" responses here or at the link the last time I checked.
Do not be so melodramatic Do not try and paint yourself as some sort of victim, that the media, doctors and society is against you. It simply isn't true. This is not about the normality of being deaf.
No one is insulting deaf people.
No one is saying deaf people are less than human. People realize that it was RNID that made that statement and that RNID does not speak for all deaf people. Obviously the number of people who would ensure the deafness of their child is very few. Obviously most parents want a child. Period. Being deaf or not is not a criteria that they want. They simply want a child and that is a good thing.
The only thing that has been said is that it would be wrong to shuffle through embryos till you find the one that you want. It is wrong to do so to ensure your children have blue eyes and it is wrong to do to ensure your child is born deaf. Hell, it is wrong to ensure your child is born able to hear for that matter.
Now yes, if the only embryos are ones that will be born deaf, than the parents should be able to implant that one. They should not be destroyed just because they are deaf.
I will make some changes to the post though...
]]>12/25/2007 6:01:59 AM2007-12-25T06:01:59+01:00164986http://www.plime.com/l/45113/1/xml_widget.rss#q13<![CDATA[germz @ 12/24/2007 7:40:05 PM]]>12/24/2007 7:40:05 PM2007-12-24T19:40:05+01:00164956http://www.plime.com/l/45113/1/xml_widget.rss#q12<![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 12/24/2007 5:25:45 PM]]> Do not be so melodramatic Do not try and paint yourself as some sort of victim, that the media, doctors and society is against you. It simply isn't true. This is not about the normality of being deaf.
No one is insulting deaf people.
No one is saying deaf people are less than human. People realize that it was RNID that made that statement and that RNID does not speak for all deaf people. Obviously the number of people who would ensure the deafness of their child is very few. Obviously most parents want a child. Period. Being deaf or not is not a criteria that they want. They simply want a child and that is a good thing.
The only thing that has been said is that it would be wrong to shuffle through embryos till you find the one that you want. It is wrong to do so to ensure your children have blue eyes and it is wrong to do to ensure your child is born deaf. Hell, it is wrong to ensure your child is born able to hear for that matter.
Now yes, if the only embryos are ones that will be born deaf, than the parents should be able to implant that one. They should not be destroyed just because they are deaf.
I will make some changes to the post though...]]>12/24/2007 5:25:45 PM2007-12-24T17:25:45+01:00164947http://www.plime.com/l/45113/1/xml_widget.rss#q11<![CDATA[deafbrutha @ 12/24/2007 4:29:15 PM]]> I've just had my Christmas spoilt having to read ignorant, uninformed and unmitigated prejudicial responses - too numerous to mention.
But do yourselves a favour, go and read about Deafness from a Deaf person's point of view [and not the toss you get handed down by the media, the medical profession and other uninformed sources].
At the very least, go to this site: www.stopeugenics.org and find out what it's really about!/]]>12/24/2007 4:29:15 PM2007-12-24T16:29:15+01:00164876http://www.plime.com/l/45113/1/xml_widget.rss#q10<![CDATA[tragluk @ 12/24/2007 12:16:53 PM]]>« In a nutshell, parliament is passing a law to say that deaf embryos are never allowed to survive (the embryo is already deaf). Killing embryos on the basis that is deaf? Ok, first I wish I could upvote you twice for being able to see beyond a headline and read the article for what it is.. Media sensationalism. But then I'd have to take away one of those upvotes for adding some of your own.
The law before the house of lords is saying that IF you go through Genetic screening that you aren't allowed to choose an embryo which has defects.
Is deafness a defect? Is it a handicap? Quite possibly. Just as being born blind is a handicap. Do people overcome and do better than those without the handicap? I'd wager more often than not. Having a challenge to overcome is strengthening and I have a great deal of respect for those who rise to that challenge. It sickens me to see perfectly healthy people abuse drugs while others who have never touched them grow sick from things like Diabetes.
Should they be sterilized or euthanized? Hell no. HELL NO. Never presume to think that you can judge the life quality of a person you don't know. So what if someone is blind? is deaf? is missing a limb? That doesn't make them any less of a person.
I'm getting the idea that the original intent of the bill was to say simply "If you see that your child will be born with hardships (down symdrome, etc.) you should screen for those with less hardships. Somewhere along the line somebody else thought that deafness was a genetic abnormality and should also be screened. So Deaf people are fighting for the right for them to be chosen instead of passed over.
But it has nothing to do with children. It's simply Deaf people are fighting to be classified as "Not Defects"
And Bravo to them. There is nothing wrong with being deaf.]]>12/24/2007 12:16:53 PM2007-12-24T12:16:53+01:00164851http://www.plime.com/l/45113/1/xml_widget.rss#q9<![CDATA[Maven @ 12/24/2007 10:49:12 AM]]>12/24/2007 10:49:12 AM2007-12-24T10:49:12+01:00164819http://www.plime.com/l/45113/1/xml_widget.rss#q8<![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 12/24/2007 9:40:21 AM]]>"the media always likes likes to paint deaf people in a bad light" does not help your case. That is obviously a false statement. Making outlandish statements will often cause people to disregard the truer statement you make.
Obviously the law you are talking about is wrong, misguided, and should be changed. That doesn't mean that RNID didn't make that statement for the exact reason that it explicitly stated.
I feel that it wasn't taken out of context, but I could be wrong. If it was, than the paper would be forced to print a retraction, so that will tell us.
This is also not the first time this and similar things have been proposed. This and similar ideas have been around since before the law you are talking about was proposed. Sometimes the selection is done via sperm donor selection.
Then there are the cases where some few deaf parents would refuse to allow their children to get cochlear implants because they feel that being deaf is a cultural thing and giving their children the gift of hearing would remove them from that culture. That is just silly. Children of deaf parents can and are part of the deaf culture whether they can hear or not.
RNID's statement does sound like an attempt to explain the statement. It sounds more like some fast-talking backtracking trying to mitigate some damage. At the very least you'd think they explicitly deny the statements made by the newspaper.
As I said, I could be wrong, but it appears that it wasn't taken out of context. IF the paper prints a retraction, than I will concede that there was an error in the article. If not, well then...]]>12/24/2007 9:40:21 AM2007-12-24T09:40:21+01:00164804http://www.plime.com/l/45113/1/xml_widget.rss#q7<![CDATA[alisonb @ 12/24/2007 8:59:32 AM]]> Deaf people are NOT demanding deaf designer babies. The headline should actually read: hearing parents demand designer hearing babies, deaf people were forced to respond.
If you want to get the real story of what this campaign is about, please check out Stop Eugenics. This includes my e mails to the Sunday Times. stopeugenics.org
In a nutshell, parliament is passing a law to say that deaf embryos are never allowed to survive (the embryo is already deaf). Killing embryos on the basis that is deaf? Deafness is a justification of not living? Deaf people actually have been sterilised in the past, as killed off (same fate as Jewish people in Nazi Germany). This is a new form of eugenics, by the UK government .. and a nanny state Govt saying what you can or cannot do.
Gender is not allowed for the basis of selection, neither is traits etc. Yet the government is proposing that deafness is screened out … undesirable.
For the record, I don’t support selection. And btw - I’m very normal (and deaf).]]>12/24/2007 8:59:32 AM2007-12-24T08:59:32+01:00164778http://www.plime.com/l/45113/1/xml_widget.rss#q6<![CDATA[doggylives @ 12/24/2007 6:32:34 AM]]> We put a huge amount of time and effort into learning new skills to help him talk and learn and get the best education from from his time in school.
When he was a baby he never made baby noises and at times it broke our hearts, he now is starting to catch up and we view ourselves and him very lucky that he now has some hearing. He is a fantastic kid and I wouldn't change him for the world but why the hell would anyone,deaf or hearing,CHOOSE to have a child born with something that will take away their pleasure in life!!!
*edit* Thats him in the picture by the way, better looking than Dad thank god!!]]>12/24/2007 6:32:34 AM2007-12-24T06:32:34+01:00164776http://www.plime.com/l/45113/1/xml_widget.rss#q5<![CDATA[hannisco @ 12/24/2007 5:40:59 AM]]>12/24/2007 5:40:59 AM2007-12-24T05:40:59+01:00164730http://www.plime.com/l/45113/1/xml_widget.rss#q4<![CDATA[Ellz @ 12/24/2007 12:26:58 AM]]>12/24/2007 12:26:58 AM2007-12-24T00:26:58+01:00164725http://www.plime.com/l/45113/1/xml_widget.rss#q3<![CDATA[briska @ 12/24/2007 12:18:34 AM]]>12/24/2007 12:18:34 AM2007-12-24T00:18:34+01:00164716http://www.plime.com/l/45113/1/xml_widget.rss#q2<![CDATA[tigertony @ 12/23/2007 11:44:47 PM]]>12/23/2007 11:44:47 PM2007-12-23T23:44:47+01:00